Why Obama must put everything on the table during budget talks

Plainly speaking by putting everything on the table, you take away any advantage that the party sitting across from you have.  You say to them, here’s the list of things and force them to now choose where and how much they will cut.  With the release of the Ryan Budget and having the Speaker of the House say that Paul Ryan is the budget czar, having total authority to choose for them their strategy, he now know what and how much. Next t step is to do the same, if not more, than they have but in a way where everyone puts skin into the game.  This can never happen if everything is not on the table

To answer his critics quoted in this Jim Kuhnhenn’s article for the Associated Press titled Obama's debt cutting plan: Everything on the table, first being  “the president's speech also comes amid liberal apprehension over recent Obama spending concessions and a desire among some Democrats to make proposed GOP cuts in Medicare a 2012 election issue. But now that Obama plans to propose his own changes in health care entitlements or Social Security, some of his own supporters are wary. They argue that the president ceded too much ground when he cut a tax deal with Republicans last December and in yielding spending cuts last week.  "I want to have confidence, but I've got to see something," said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman and president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, an advocacy group. "They can't continue to give in."  To Ms. Kennelly this may be giving in but to me it’s having them just where you want them.  He did not vote them into office nor did he allow them to act so callously, the voters who elected them did and only they can fix that issue.  In any card game, you have to play with the ones you are dealt or throw your hand in and quit.  Quitting for him is not an option.  He is banking on the voters to realize that if they wish the country to continue moving forward and win the future, they must do their part and sends him representatives who think more about what’s best for this nation as a whole and not about what’s best for party or politics.

The next misguided statement is “Many liberals say Obama has not been a strong bargainer.

"Their weakness in getting the most out of negotiations is their strategic belief that they don't want to be seen as fighting, they want to appear above the fray and beyond partisanship," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "They also believe that they shouldn't get out there on a position where they may not succeed. These are characteristics that make for a weak negotiator."  While Mr. Mishel may posses’ knowledge that I don’t, I have to strongly disagree with him.  Stepping out on a cause is not about picking a winner or loser; it’s about keeping strong to your beliefs.  This president believes that he was chosen to make the tough decision and bring this country back from the brink.  If you truly look at the employment numbers and all other indications besides opinionated polls, it would be clear to see.  His job is not to please everyone but to make the decisions which will benefit all of us as a whole.  Being a “weak negotiator” is a good thing especially when your opponents think you are weak.  They tend to underestimate you and soon find themselves guilty of a major sin called over-reaching.  When attempting to talk another down from a ledge, the last thing you want to do is get up there with them.  If liberals wish to hold Obama to a certain standard, they must also be willing to hold all of Washington and themselves to that same standard.